For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 9, 2004
Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:31 P.M. EDT
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me start by saying
that the President looks
forward to welcoming Prime Minister Belka of Poland to the White House
this afternoon. The United States and Poland have a strong strategic
alliance that is rooted in our shared values, and a common struggle for
freedom. Poland is a vital partner in the international efforts to help
the Iraqi people build a free and peaceful future. And today's meeting
is an opportunity for the two leaders to continue discussing the war on
terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq, and our bilateral economic relations,
and the NATO and E.U. agendas. And you will hear more from the
President following that meeting.
And with that, I'll be glad to go to your questions. Go ahead,
Helen.
Q The President said at the community college that the people who
we're fighting are cruel, have no conscience, and kill innocent people.
And my question is, during our two wars in the
last three years, have
we killed any innocent people?
MR. McCLELLAN: The United States military goes to great lengths to
make sure that we minimize any loss of innocent human life, and they go
out of their way to make sure that that happens. This administration is
strongly committed to making sure we do everything we can to minimize
the loss of innocent human life.
Q I didn't ask you that. I asked you if we have killed any innocent
people.
MR. McCLELLAN: And I would point out that this -- that the war in
Iraq was one where we were able to target and remove a brutal regime
from power while minimizing any collateral damage --
Q Did we kill any innocent people?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- or loss of innocent human life. We certainly do
not target innocent human civilians. And there are terrorists and
others in Iraq, former regime elements who do target innocent
civilians, innocent Iraqis. They are enemies of freedom and peace. What
we have done --
Q Seventy thousand tons of bombs --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- is liberated the Iraqi people and provided hope
for innocent Iraqis.
Q How about the people who are dead?
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.
Q I understand that you don't want to comment on these charges that
have been leveled against Ahmed Chalabi by the
Iraqi government on
counterfeiting. You said that already. But given the fact that he was
once a welcome figure around the White House and other federal
buildings in this town, does the President now feel that Ahmed Chalabi
is a totally discredited figure? And is concerned about Chalabi's being
in Iran and that he may be in some way vetting the Iranian nuclear
project or turning over some information that could be harmful to the
United States? Is he concerned about Chalabi?
MR. McCLELLAN: John, I think we have talked about this issue
previously. His future will be decided by the people of Iraq, if he
wants to continue to be involved in Iraq 's future. Iraq is a sovereign
nation now. They're moving forward on building a free and peaceful and
stable future. This latest investigation, that is a matter for Iraqi
authorities to handle. They're working to address that matter We would
expect that due process be followed. The rule of law is part of the new
Iraq, and so we would expect there to be due process.
Q Apart from the counterfeiting charge, based on other allegations
that have come out regarding Chalabi, as far as this White House is
concerned, is Chalabi is not welcome around here?
MR. McCLELLAN: Look, he is someone who is an Iraqi citizen, he is
-- and his future will be determined by the Iraqi people, if he seeks
to have a future role in that country. So this is bigger than any one
person, what is going on in Iraq.
Go ahead, Jeff.
Q Thank you. The imam that was arrested in New York last week was
discovered because his name appeared in a Rolodex in a terrorist
training camp in Iraq before the war. The book was found after, by U.S.
troops, but he was in Iraq before the war. Is this another piece of
evidence showing the direct terror ties between Iraq and al Qaeda?
MR. McCLELLAN: One, that's an ongoing investigation. I think the
questions related to those particular individuals are best directed to
the Department of Justice. And so that's -- I would refer any questions
about that investigation to the Department of Justice.
We are continuing to wage the war on terrorism on many fronts, both
abroad and at home. And I think you're seeing that through the actions
that we are taking.
Q Let me follow up with a second question. How damaging was the
revelation of the deepest mole that we've ever had in al Qaeda? The
publication of that man's name by The New York Times -- how damaging is
that to our war on terror?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry -- which specific instance are you
referring to?
Q The New York Times published the name of Muhammad
Naeem Noor
Khan, who was described by intelligence officials as the only deep
mole
we've ever had within al Qaeda.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure where it was published, first.
Obviously, it was published recently -- the capture of this individual.
It is important that we recognize that sometimes there are ongoing
operations underway. And as we move forward on capturing or bringing
to justice al Qaeda members, we need to keep that in mind. And
sometimes we aren't able to go into as much detail we would like to
because of those ongoing operations. And I think everybody has a
responsibility to keep that in mind.
Q Scott --
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Terry.
Q Do you think The New York Times shouldn't have published the
name?
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Terry. Q Senator Kerry has been making
light, or making fun of the President saying "we've turned the corner,
and we're not going back," given the fact that the job growth has been
weak, and the energy prices are rising. Is that something that the
President is not going to say anymore? Is he reconsidering that, given
that the jobs are --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, let me talk about rising energy
prices as you pointed out. This President has put forward a
comprehensive energy plan and called on Congress to act on it, so that
we don't continue to run into this problem every year. And there are
two reasons why we do not, today, have a comprehensive energy plan.
It's called -- they are called John Kerry and John Edwards. They voted
against it and stalled action in the Senate on a comprehensive energy
plan that would help us reduce our dependence on foreign sources of
energy and keep us from going through this cycle every year where we
see gas prices rise.
In terms of the economy, which I think is what you were talking
about more broadly, there are clear choices going forward. First of
all, the economy is moving forward. The latest employment report was
one of many indicators that shows that the economy is moving forward.
It also shows that we're in a changing economy and we've got more to
do. That's why the President is continuing to act and call on action on
his six-point plan for strengthening our economy even more. But we've
had 11 straight months of job growth, 1.5 million jobs created since
last August, the unemployment rate dropped to 5.5 percent, which is
well below the averages of the '70s, '80s and '90s, and real, after-tax
disposable income is up 10 percent. That's real money that people have
after they've paid their taxes. And that's important to look at, as
well.
Consumer confidence is at a two-year high. Home ownership is at
record levels. So you have to look at the overall picture. The economy
is moving forward, and we're not turning back. The last thing we need
to do right now is raise taxes and bring the economy to a screeching
halt. And that's what the President's opponent would do if he were in
office.
Q Maryland -- I have a two-part. Maryland's ambassador, Alan Keyes'
decision to run in Illinois against State Senator Barak Obama has
provoked the absolute editorial fury of the Washington Post this
morning, which quoted Dr. Keyes objection four years ago to Hillary
Clinton of Illinois and Arkansas running in New York. And my question.
Since New York has preferred to elect outsiders like Bobby Kennedy and
Hillary, and since Alfred Lord Tennyson's classic, "new occasions teach
new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth," the President will surely
support Ambassador Keyes' right to change his mind, and he'll look
forward to those Illinois debates, won't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: Les, if there is more to say on this, I'll let you
know. But the committee in Illinois recently just made a selection in
this race. The President is certainly going to compete for the votes
in Illinois for his own campaign, and I'll let you know if there's more
to say on this.
Q All right. Journalist -- I have a follow up. The Journalists of
Color organization, comprised of black, Hispanic, Asian and American
Indian, which would have barred such journalists as Ralph McGill of the
Atlanta Constitution and Hodding Carter of the Greenville Mississippi
Delta Democrat Times, risked their lives fighting racial segregation.
But it would be open to such journalists as Jayson Blair of the New
York Times and Janet Cooke of the Washington Post. And my question, why
did the President speak to this racially segregated organization, whose
title leaves you, and most of us in this room, as colorless?
MR. McCLELLAN: Les, if you have questions about the organization, I
think you can direct them to the organization. The President --
Q I tried. They don't answer the phone. I want to know why did the
President speak to this racially segregated organization?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President was pleased to go and speak to the
UNITY Conference and talk to them about his record in office and his
agenda moving forward. It is a record that is based on expanding
opportunity for all Americans and improving the quality of life for all
Americans. It's a very strong record. The President has delivered, when
it comes to expanding opportunity for all Americans and improving the
quality of life for all Americans. And he was pleased to go there and
talk about that, and talk about his agenda as we move forward and build
upon that record.
Suzanne, and then John.
Q Has the President, by executive order, implemented any of the
9/11 Commission recommendations? You said that
would happen within
days. Can you give an update on that?
MR. McCLELLAN: He said that he would be moving forward on that in
the coming days with some presidential directives. There's no update at
this point, in terms of those directives, but we are continuing to move
forward in a quick and responsible manner. We have already moved
forward in one way or another on 36 of 41 of the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations. And we are continuing to move forward on the
additional recommendations that build upon the reforms that this
administration has already put in place. We've made significant
strides when it comes to creating the Department of Homeland Security;
transforming the FBI to where its mission is focused on combating
terrorism here at home; and creating the Terrorist Threat Integration
Center; and in strengthening aviation security.
So we've made significant strides, and the President welcomes these
recommendations and we're continuing to move forward in a quick and
responsible manner. It's important that we carefully and seriously
consider these recommendations and how we implement them as we move
forward. And we'll be working with Congress closely on that. Members of
Congress are already moving forward on it, as well.
Did you have a second question?
Q Can we expect that this week, perhaps, he'll be signing an
executive order?
MR. McCLELLAN: He said, in the coming days, and I'll leave it where
he left it in his radio address.
Gregory. I'm sorry, I said, John, and then Gregory. Go ahead,
John.
Q Let him go first.
MR. McCLELLAN: Okay.
Q About stem cell research. There are
those -- not only the
politicians opposing this President, but some in the scientific
community -- who think that the 2001 policy ought to be expanded, that
the President called for stem cell research; there ought to be
additional cell lines made available for research. Is the President
open to that?
MR. MCCLELLAN: First of all, the 2001 policy was an expansion of
the policy. This President is delivering when it comes to advancing
medical research and combating disease. He is the first President to
authorize federal funding to explore the promise and potential of
embryonic stem cell research. We are doing so in a way that doesn't
cross an ethical line. And it's important that we not go down a
dangerous, slippery slope where we divorce ethics from science.
And so this policy has allowed the federal government, for the
first time, to open up the doors of funding so that we could explore
the potential of stem cell research. The funding for fiscal year 2003
was $24.8 million, that's up from zero in the previous administration.
That's for embryonic stem cell research. We've also provided over $190
million in funding for adult stem cell research, which continues to
show great promise. And that's the President's policy. He believes --
Q But the President, himself, said that it's the embryonic research
--
MR. McCLELLAN: -- he believes that this was a well thought out
policy and he believes it's the right policy for continuing to explore
the promise of stem cell research in a way that doesn't cross a certain
ethical line.
Q Is the answer "no," then?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's what I -- I said, he believes this is the
right policy and he's committed to continuing to move forward on
exploring the promise and potential of stem cell research.
Q Even in the face of some prominent Republican activists, like
Nancy Reagan, the President does not believe that any additional
federal funding should be made available for expanded research in this
area?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've seen a lot of mis-reporting about this
issue recently, that seems to imply that we put a ban on stem cell
research, when the fact is this President was the first to open the
doors for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Q You just said that, and I covered it at the time and I understand
that. What I'm asking you is, you're saying, unequivocally, that he
does not believe that there is any need or is not, you know, prepared
to provide any additional federal funding to expand this area of
research?
MR. McCLELLAN: Keep in mind that right now, embryonic stem cell
research is still in its early stages. We're still trying to explore
the promise and potential of that kind of stem cell research, in
addition to the adult stem cell research that is going on. And the
President does not believe we should be creating life for the sole
purpose of destroying it. That's a principle which he feels very
strongly about. And so he came up with this well thought out policy
that allowed the federal government to move forward for the first
time.
There are more lines available in the United States for stem cell
research than in any other country. Many countries have placed limits
on embryonic stem cell research. But the United States has no -- on
private stem cell research -- but the United States has no limits on
private stem cell research. And federal funds have supported more than
500 shipments to researchers to date, and there are more than 3,500
shipments available. He believes this is the right policy to allow us
to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research. And he
remains committed to the policy he outlined.
Q Just one more on this. How does he react to the criticism that
has been leveled against him, that he is allowing ideology and religion
to trump potential scientific breakthroughs in this area?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why I said, David, you go down a dangerous,
slippery slope when you try to divorce ethics from science. This
President views this as a decision that is based on his commitment to
advancing medical research and combating disease in a way that doesn't
cross that ethical line.
Q But isn't it really driven by his ideology and his religious
beliefs --
MR. McCLELLAN: You know that these are --
Q -- he cited his religious beliefs on August 9, 2001.
MR. McCLELLAN: You know that that's not -- not an accurate way to
describe it. This President has long held principles when it comes to
creating life for the sole purpose of destroying it, and he's spoken
about that for quite some time.
Go ahead.
Q Earlier when the United States stopped having dealings with Mr.
Chalabi --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me add one thing, too. Because when I talk about
his -- how the President is firmly committed to advancing medical
research, we have worked to increase funding for the National
Institutes of Health by more than 40 percent. The funding for
Alzheimer's by the National Institutes of Health is up more than 30
percent since 2001. We've proposed $700 million in our 2005 budget. So
I think you need to look at this -- the record of the President. He is
delivering when it comes to advancing medical research. It's not
something he's talked about; it's something he's delivered on.
Go ahead. Sorry.
Q At the morning session, we started to talk about Mr. Chalabi, and
so again. Going back to that, when the United States stopped having
dealings with Mr. Chalabi earlier in the year, he made it very clear
that he wanted to come to Washington and talk to members of Congress
and tell his side of the story. Is that offer still open to him? Is
that avenue still possible? And, second, is he a fugitive now in the
eyes of the United States?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you need to talk to the members of Congress
about that. But, again, this is an Iraqi matter, and Iraqi authorities
are working to address it. They're taking steps to address it. You need
to direct those questions to Iraqi authorities. They are a sovereign
nation, and it's not something that -- to my knowledge -- we've been
involved in.
Q So you would not give him a visa, for example?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not going to get into speculating about
things that are just hypotheticals.
Go ahead, Wendell.
Q Scott, how do you respond the Kerry campaign's assertion that the
President's push for an ownership society
rings pretty hollow to people
who either can't find a job, or can't find a good-paying job?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, this is a fundamental difference in the
campaign -- a fundamental difference based on principle. The President
trusts in the American people to make the right choices, and to have
more control over their own lives, whereas his opponent trusts in
government. So there are fundamental differences of principle on this
issue. And when it comes to improving economic security, creating an
ownership society is an important part of improving people's economic
security. The President feels strongly that people should be able to be
in a position to own their own home, have more say over their health
care plans, have more say over their retirement plans, and be able to
start and own a small business. And that's -- the policies he's focused
on are pro-growth policies that allow people to do that, that allow
people to own their own small business, and reduces government's role
in overseeing those small businesses.
Q You did not address the --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let me --
Q The issue being --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think I'm coming to it.
Q -- the ability to own anything.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q The issue being the ability to buy. If you have no job, if you
have no well paying job --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, look at the results from the actions that we
have taken. Remember what we've been through. We've been through a
recession. When we came into office, we had the September 11th
attacks, we had the corporate scandal, we had the lead-up to the war in
Iraq. This President acted in a very strong and decisive way to get our
economy growing. Our economy is moving forward, but there's more work
to do. And that's why the President is also -- also recognizes that
we're in a changing economy. He's not satisfied. We've got more work
to do. There are people who are still looking for work. And this
President is committed to making sure that we have as robust an
environment as possible for job creation.
That's why he put forward his plan to strengthen high school
education and his plan to better train workers, so that they can fill
the jobs of the 21st century. The fact of the matter is that people's
real, disposable, after-tax income is up 10 percent under this
President. And that's important to point out, as well. But in order to
also improve their economic security, it's important to foster an
ownership society. And that's why the President wants to usher in an
era of ownership in America. And he wants to empower people to have
more control over their own lives. That's what this is about, and
there's a fundamental difference of principle here that we welcome the
debate about.
Q Scott, I have two questions, if I may. Dr. John Hamre, former
number two at the Pentagon, claims neither the 9/11 Commission nor the
President got it right in solving America's intelligence problems. Dr.
Hamre says, if a National Intelligence Director must be named, that
person should only be in charge of intelligence gathering, not its
analysis and perspective. Would the President consider this proposal
as --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you've heard the President talk about
his support for creating a National Intelligence Director. We're
continuing to work through the details, in terms of the authority over
matters like budget and personnel that that individual would have. But
we've made it clear that that person will have the authority he or she
needs to do the job. And we want to make sure that that person has
effective authority to do the job right. And the National Intelligence
Director will be the President's principal intelligence advisor. And
the President will be moving forward with more details about this as we
work through some of the specifics.
Q Given the National Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations
failed to actually stop Iran's nuclear weapons
program, is the
President willing to go it alone in dealings with Iran?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that this is a problem that the
international community recognizes is a threat. The international
community is confronting Iran, because of the leadership that this
President has provided. It was the United States that brought our
concern -- the concerns about Iran's nuclear weapons program to the
international community. And the international community recognizes
that this is a real threat. And that's why we are working with our
friends in Britain and Germany and France on this matter. Iran needs to
comply with its international obligations. We expect that at the next
board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency that there will
be a very strong statement regarding Iran's continued non-compliance
with their international obligations. And the international community
recognizes that we cannot afford to let Iran move forward on a nuclear
-- on building nuclear weapons. And so that's how -- that's where it is
right now.
Connie.
Q Thank you, Scott. Last week, the Protocol Office of the State
Department listed a lot of gifts to the President and their family.
Especially huge were the gifts from Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince, well
over $100,000. First of all, does the President and his family get to
use these gifts, and are they considered a bribe? Do they affect policy
in any way? (Laughter.)
MR. McCLELLAN: No, they -- absolutely not, Connie. And I don't know
what's happened with those gifts. I'll try to check into it.
Peter.
Q Scott, Senator Biden, this morning, became the latest to question
whether or not there's an imminent terror
threat to the country. What
do you make of his comment, what --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think Secretary Ridge said that he could not
say that it was an imminent one. I think we expressed urgency about the
information that we recently uncovered.
Q What do you make of the ongoing questions about whether there is
an urgency, whether the evidence merited what has happened --
MR. McCLELLAN: I think anyone who has seen or been briefed on this
intelligence recognizes that it is serious and it is real. You have to
look at the most recent intelligence that has been uncovered in the
context of what we already knew. We're already in a heightened state of
awareness with the pre-election threat that Secretary Ridge and
Attorney General Ashcroft have talked about, going back to earlier this
summer. And you also have to look at it in the context of other streams
of intelligence that are out there. But this is serious and real, and
that's why it was important to talk to the American people about this
recent information that we have received, which is very specific and
detailed in its nature.
Go ahead.
Q Scott, two clarifications, please. One, President said many times
that there are no training camps in Pakistan at this time, because
Pakistan is an ally of the United States (inaudible) -- terrorism. But
during his recent visit, Mr. Armitage, the Deputy Under Secretary of
State -- Deputy Secretary of State, he was in (inaudible) and he made
it clear that there are still training camps in Pakistan.
Number two, rather than blaming the intelligence authorities or
intelligence of CIA as far as 9/11 report is concerned, don't you think
that we -- or U.S. may have been misled by the French or allies that
U.S. was -- relied on the information?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry, the information? Well, let me address
your first one and then come back to your second one. But in terms of
Pakistan, it is -- Pakistan is another example of the great progress
and the results we are achieving in the war on terrorism. We've come a
long way from three years ago where al Qaeda was allowed to move
through Pakistan. Now Pakistan is working closely with us to combat al
Qaeda and defeat the terrorists within their own country and along the
Afghan-Pakistan border there. So they're working very closely -- we're
working very closely with Pakistan as we move forward to defeat the
enemies and defeat the terrorists that are in Pakistan and along that
Afghan-Pakistan border. And we appreciate all that they're doing in the
war on terrorism. There's always more to do in the war on terrorism.
Q Thank you.
MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you.
END 12:59 P.M. EDT
|